Pappu S/O. Ratanlal Karase (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashta Thr. Police ... on 27 September, 2021

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pappu S/O. Ratanlal Karase (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashta Thr. Police ... on 27 September, 2021

Bench: V.M.Deshpande, Amit B.Borkar

Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.374 OF 2018
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.492 OF 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.374 OF 2018
Gulab s/o Sadu Jadhao,
Aged about 45 years, occupation agriculturist,
R/o Jivati Ward No.3, tahsil Jivati,
District Chandrapur. ..... Appellant.

:: V E R S U S ::

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Jivati,
Tahsil Jivati, district Chandrapur. ..... Respondent.
===================================
Shri R.M.Daga, Counsel for the Appellant.
Shri T.A.Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State.
===================================

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.492 OF 2018
Pappu s/o Ratanlal Karase,
Aged 52 years, occupation labour,
R/o Zakir Hussain Ward No.13,
Ballarshah at present Shantinagar
Ward, Jivati, tahsil Jivati, district
Chandrapur. (Presently Central
Prison at Nagpur). ..... Appellant.

:: V E R S U S ::

The State of Maharashtra,

.....2/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

Through Police Station Officer,
Jivati, tahsil Jivati, district Chandrapur. ..... Respondent.
===================================
Shri C.R.Thakur, Counsel for the Appellant.
Shri T.A.Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State.
===================================

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, & AMIT B.BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 27, 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per : V.M.Deshpande, J.)

1. Learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special

(Atrocity) Case No.13/2015 framed charge against four accused

persons. They were charged for offences punishable under

Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

Accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 were further charged for

offence punishable under Section 376(2)(j)(l) of the Indian Penal

Code. Whereas, accused No.3 was charged for offence punishable

under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to the

said, accused Nos.2 and 3 were charged for offence punishable

under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and both accused

persons were also charged for offence punishable under Section

.....3/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

376(2)(j)(i) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Accused persons denied the charge and claimed for

their trial. After a full dressed trial, vide judgment dated 8.5.2018,

learned Judge acquitted accused Nos.3 and 4 from all charges.

Similarly, accused No.2 was also acquitted of offence punishable

under the atrocities Act.

3. Original accused Nos.1 and 2, by the said judgment,

were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363; 366

read with Section 34, and 376(2)(j)(l) of the Indian Penal Code.

They were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for three years and to pay fine Rs.3000/-, on account of their

conviction for offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian

Penal Code.

They were also directed to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.5000/-, on account

of their conviction for offence punishable under Section 366 of the

Indian Penal Code.

.....4/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

Both of them were directed to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life and to pay fine Rs.10,000/-, by each of them,

on account of their conviction for offence punishable under Section

376(2)(j)(l) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order

of conviction, accused No.1 Pappu s/o Ratanlal Karase filed

Criminal Appeal No.492/2018. Whereas, accused No.2 Gulab s/o

Sadu Jadhao filed Criminal Appeal No.374/2018.

5. In view of fact that these two appeals arise out of the

same judgment and order of conviction, they are taken up for its

final hearing simultaneously and they are disposed of by this

common judgment.

6. For accused No.1 Pappu Karase, learned counsel Shri

C.R.Thakur appeared and argued his case. For accused No.2 Gulab

Jadhao, learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga appeared and submitted

the said appellant's case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Shri T.A.Mirza defended the judgment and order of conviction for

and on behalf of the State in both these appeals.

.....5/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

7. The prosecution case, as it was disclosed during

course of trial, is narrated herein under:-

A lady Police Constable Premila Madhukar Sidam

(PW21), was discharging her station diary duties of Jivati Police

Station on 26.2.2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.. At 8:30 p.m.,

Uddhav (PW2) (his surname is withheld to screen identity of

victim and only his name is mentioned in this judgment ) came to

the police station and lodged his oral report (Exhibit-69). Gist of

the First Information Report is that on day of incident victim, her

brother, father, and grandfather went to Gadchandur for obtaining

a doctor's certificate of the victim, a widow who used to stay with

the first informant. After completion of their work, all of them

came at Jivati Bus Stop at about 4:30 p.m.. At Jivati, somehow the

victim got separated from her brother and her grandfather. When

the first informant came back to village Yellapur, where they used

to reside, made enquiries about the victim. Upon that, his father

told about their separation. Therefore, immediately, the first

informant along with his friend Shuddhodhan Babarao

Chandankhede (PW7) came to Jivati at about 8:30 p.m. and

.....6/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

started enquiry from persons who were standing on road where he

got an information that the victim was found in company of Pappu

Karase, accused No.1, and, therefore, after gathering inputs, in

respect of his residential address, he reached to Pappu's house. He

found door was closed. He gave a call and pushed door to notice

that the victim was found sleeping on a cot in a semi-nude

condition and Pappu was on her person and was committing

sexual intercourse. The First Information Report recites that he

accosted Pappu. Upon that, Pappu got up and put his clothes. The

first informant, thereafter, made enquiries with his sister who

disclosed that when she was proceeding to tahsil office along with

father on foot, she was tired and, therefore, she sat near a bus

stop. At that time, Pappu gave some eatables to her and brought

her to his house by holding her hands and, thereafter, asked her to

drink liquor which she drank thinking that it is water. Resulting

into, her fuddle and taking its disadvantage he committed sexual

intercourse on her. Therefore, the first informant came to the

police station along with his sister and lodged the First Information

Report and asked to take action against Pappu.

.....7/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

8. On the basis of oral report (Exhibit-69), the offence

was registered against Pappu, accused No.1, vide Crime

No.7/2015.

9. Investigation of the said crime was entrusted to Police

Sub Inspector Rajesh Malpilu (PW22) by superior police officers.

On 27.2.2015, he arrested Pappu, accused No.1, under arrest form

(Exhibit-175). The victim was referred for her medical

examination to Primary Health Centre at Jivati. Medical Officer

informed the Investigating Officer that medical examination of the

victim is not possible at Jivati and, therefore, she was referred to

Civil Hospital at Chandrapur. The Investigating Officer also visited

spot of incident and spot panchnama was drawn which is duly

proved by Kisan Loharale (PW1). The said spot panchnama is at

Exhibit-60. The spot panchnama shows that spot, where there was

sexual intercourse with the victim, is a residential house of

appellant Pappu. The Investigating Officer also seized from spot of

incident a glass bottle of liquor having label Rocket Santra and a

blanket which are mentioned in Exhibit-60 itself. He seized

various samples of the victim handed over by Medical Officer, Civil

.....8/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

Hospital at Chandrapur as well as various samples of Pappu

handed over by Medical Officer, Gadchandur Rural Hospital.

Clothes of the victim are seized under seizure panchnama (Exhibit-

61). Clothes of Pappu is seized under seizure panchnama (Exhibit-

62). His blood samples on pubic hairs were seized under seizure

panchnama (Exhibit-63). Similarly, blood samples of the victim

were seized under seizure panchnama (Exhibit-64).

10. Police Sub Inspector Rajesh Malpilu (PW22), on

27.2.2015 tried to record statement of the victim in presence of

lady Police Inspector Geeta Tangade. However, the victim was

unable to give her statement and, therefore, a letter was given to

Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Chandrapur to give opinion as to

whether the victim is fit to give statement. The said letter is at

Exhibit-73. On the said, Medical Officer opined that the victim is

suffering from mental ailment and as such they are admitting her

in hospital for the purposes of observation. The said remark is at

Exhibit-74. The Investigating Officer also forwarded a letter to

Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre at Jivati on 26.2.2015 for

obtaining an opinion as to whether the victim was under the

.....9/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

influence of liquor or not. The said letter is at Exhibit-118.

Opinion given by the doctor is at Exhibit-119. Opinion given by

the doctor clearly states that the victim was found under the

influence of liquor. The Investigating Officer also recorded

statements of witnesses.

11. Since during course of the investigation it was found

that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Castes, the investigation

was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vijaykumar

Chavhan (PW23). He arrested Gulab Jadhao, accused No.2. His

arrest memo is at Exhibit-182. The said arrest memo shows that

Gulab was arrested on 2.3.2015. His blood samples were seized.

12. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was

filed and, thereafter, trial was commenced against four accused

persons and the judgment and order of conviction, impugned in

these appeals, was passed.

13. According to learned counsel for appellant Pappu, he

is falsely implicated in the crime. Learned counsel submitted that

the prosecution did not examine the victim as its witness and she

.....10/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

was examined as defence witness by accused No.2 Gulab and from

her evidence it is clear that on the say of her brother Uddhav

(PW2) and his wife she is deposing before the Court that four

persons made sexual assault on her. He, therefore, submitted that

his appeal be allowed.

14. According to learned counsel for appellant Gulab,

name of Gulab did not figure in the First Information Report and

his presence near bed inside the house of appellant Pappu, is an

improvement and in addition to that it is his submission that even

Uddhav (PW2) did not speak about sexual intercourse by him. He

submitted that DNA Report, which was made a basis to convict him

by learned Judge of the Trial Court, also does not show his

complicity. He, therefore, prayed that his appeal be allowed.

15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

vehemently supported the judgment and order of conviction

impugned in these appeals.

16. In this judgment, we will be discussing that part of

evidence concerning with appellant Pappu and appellant Gulab

.....11/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

only in view of acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4 and also we would

not touch that part of evidence pertains to the offence under the

atrocities Act because of acquittal of appellants before us from the

offence under the said Act. Here, it is to be mentioned that the

State did not challenge the acquittal of original accused Nos.3 and

4 and acquittal of present appellants from offence punishable

under the atrocities Act.

17. First submission of learned counsel for appellant

Pappu is that the victim was not examined has its own impact on

the prosecution case. True it is that the victim was not examined

as prosecution witness.

18. Whether the prosecution was justified for non-

examination of the victim?

19. Kiran Deshpande (PW3) is doctor, who is MD

Psychiatric, was attached to the Government Hospital at

Chandrapur. Exhibit-73 is communication dated 27.2.2015 by

Police Sub Inspector Rajesh Malpilu (PW22) to the Superintendent

of the Government Hospital, Chandrapur. Perusal of the said

.....12/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

communication reveals that after registration of the crime on

26.2.2015, since the victim was found under the influence of

liquor, her statement could not be recorded and, thereafter, also

though repeated attempts were made to record her statement, it

was found that she is behaving like a mentally challenged women.

Therefore, request was made to examine her in that behalf.

20. In the light of the aforesaid communication, it would

be useful to mention here that the victim was firstly brought in the

Primary Health Centre at Jivati by police. A requisition (Exhibit-

118) was given to doctor to verify as to whether she is under the

influence of liquor. Accordingly, Dr.Shalini Tarone (PW8)

examined the victim on 26.2.2015 at 10:30 p.m.. Her evidence

shows that when she examined the victim, she noticed smell of

alcohol from her mouth and her speech was slurred. She was not

responding to questions properly and she was having mild

drowsiness. Accordingly, the doctor gave her opinion (Exhibit-

119) in which she in unequivocal term recorded that the victim

was under the influence of liquor.

.....13/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

21. On getting communication (Exhibit-73) from Police

Sub Inspector Rajesh Malpilu (PW22), the Superintendent of the

Government Hospital, Chandrapur directed Dr.Kiran Deshpande

(PW3) to examine the victim. Accordingly, he directed his staff to

admit the victim in ward No.8 for observations and treatment. The

victim was admitted for observations for about four days and

found that she was not in a condition to give her statement and

after four-five days her mental condition may improve. Dr.Kiran

Deshpande proved his said noting and finding (Exhibit-74). He

also proved medical certificate (Exhibit-76). His evidence shows

that as per direction of Court, the victim was again observed for

next five to six days and on her examination it was found that the

victim is lunatic and her mental illness is subsisting for more than

twenty years and accordingly he gave his certificate (Exhibit-78).

His evidence shows that after submission of Exhibit-78 to Court

pertains to the victim, the Court referred the victim for further

treatment to Mental Hospital, Nagpur.

22. Though Dr.Kiran Deshpande (PW3) was cross-

examined by counsel for appellant Pappu, whose cross-

.....14/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

examination was adopted by remaining accused persons, does not

show anything to discard Dr.Kiran's evidence to record a contrary

finding that the victim was not lunatic or was not having mental

illness for past twenty years.

23. In view of evidence of Dr.Kiran Deshpande (PW3), no

exception can be taken for non-examination of the victim by the

prosecution during course of the trial. Therefore, we reject the

contention of learned counsel for appellant Pappu that the

prosecution case has to be discarded in its entirety for non-

examination of the victim.

24. Dr.Jaya Bhongale (PW24), the Medical Officer

attached to the Civil Hospital, Chandrapur, examined the victim

when she was brought for her medical examination by a lady

police constable of Jivati Police Station. Exhibit-244, which is

Forensic Examination Report of the victim, shows that the victim

was examined on 27.2.2015 at 3:00 p.m.. On genetic

examination , the doctor found hymen of the victim was torn and it

was in circumferential shape. Medical Report of the victim given

.....15/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

by the doctor is at Exhibit-245. The doctor also collected samples

of vaginal swab, blood sample, nail and pubic hair, and also filled

Form-B of the victim under Exhibit-247. Under Exhibit-246, she

gave an opinion that sexual intercourse had occurred.

25. In respect of search and noticing presence of the

victim in the house of appellant Pappu, two witnesses are relevant

and they are:

(i) Uddhav (PW2) and (ii) Shuddhodhan Babarao

Chandankhede (PW7)

Uddhav (PW2), is real brother of the victim. Whereas,

Shuddhodhan (PW7) is his friend. Evidence of Shuddhodhan

corroborates version of Uddhav that he came along with him from

village Yellapur to Jivati in search of the victim and in the search

they reached Deulaguda Bus Stop and there, upon enquiry by

Uddhav, it was informed to him that he may visit to the house of

Pappu, accused No.1. As per evidence of Shuddhodhan, he went

to the house of appellant Pappu. Evidence of Uddhav shows that

in the meantime he was also searching for his sister. As per

.....16/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

evidence of Shuddhodhan, when he reached to the house of

appellant Pappu, he found that door was closed from inside. He

gave a call and asked as to whether it is house of Pappu. On

getting an affirmative reply, he asked any lady member is inside.

Upon that, he received a negative reply. He, thereafter, came back

to search Uddhav. It is his version that after some time he again

went to the house of Pappu. That time, he found that Uddhav was

beating appellant Pappu and his sister was present inside the

house of appellant Pappu. Evidence of Shuddhodhan shows that

he persuaded Uddhav not to beat appellant Pappu, instead shall

file a police complaint. However, for other part of the prosecution

case, this witness did not support the prosecution and, therefore,

he was declared hostile.

26. The law in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at AIR 1991 SC 1853 is well

settled on the aspect that merely because a witness has turned

hostile, the Court need not discard his evidence in its entirety. The

Court can consider his evidence to that extent he supports the

prosecution case.

.....17/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

27. Evidence of Uddhav (PW2) shows that he reached to

Jivati along with Shuddhodhan in search of his sister and after

getting a vital information that his sister was taken by appellant

Pappu to his house, he reached to his house and when door was

opened he found appellant Pappu was committing sexual

intercourse with his mentally challenged sister who was

administered liquor and she was under the influence of liquor. He,

therefore, lodged the report.

28. Uddhav (PW2), in his oral report (Exhibit-69) did not

mention names of any other accused nor their presence was

mentioned in the First Information Report. From witness box, he

did state that when he went inside the house of appellant Pappu,

he was committing sexual intercourse and appellant Gulab was

standing nearby wooden cot. Therefore, he became angry and

assaulted on appellant Pappu and tried to assault on appellant

Gulab also, however he was threatened by him.

29. In our view, not referring presence of Gulab, accused

No.2, in the First Information Report (Exhibit-69), which was

.....18/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

lodged immediately, assumes importance qua Gulab. It is really

unbelievable that a brother will not mention at least a person who

was present, may be standing, while other accused person was

committing sexual intercourse with his mentally challenged sister.

It is quite possible that at that point of time Uddhav might be not

having name of accused No.2, but surely he would have stated in

his First Information Report about presence of at least the

unidentified person. Not mention of name of Gulab in the First

Information Report, which was lodged immediately, is a relevant

fact while considering the case of Gulab. Even, in his subsequent

statement also he did not name the other accused persons. It is to

be mentioned here that from his evidence it is clear that he was a

police patil for last eleven years. Uddhav, being a police patil, it is

really hard to believe that he will miss mentioning of presence of

other accused persons at the time of commission of offence of rape.

30. Sheikh Sattar Sheikh Nijam is (PW9), who runs a

panthela, and Husainkhan Pathan is (PW11), who runs a tea stall.

Evidence of Sheikh Sattar (PW9) shows that he runs a

.....19/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

panthela near Deulaguda Bus Stop. His evidence shows that on

the day of the incident he noticed presence of a lady near his

panthela, but he was unable to throw further details since she was

sitting at a distance of 10 to 15 feet from his panthela. His

evidence also shows that at 8:30 p.m. a person came to his

panthela and was asking people gathered as to whether they have

seen any insane lady member. His evidence shows that he

overheard their conversations between the said person and the

persons gathered there that lady has gone to Pappu, accused No.1.

Evidence of this prosecution witness does not show either presence

of Gulab, accused No.2, or even his remote reference in his

evidence.

Evidence of Husainkhan Pathan (PW11) shows that he

runs a tea stall near Deulaguda Square at Jivati. His evidence

shows that he, during enquiry by police, told that Pappu, accused

No.1, and Ajay Khanke, acquitted accused No.3, were at his hotel

and they left and also he told that somebody came to him in search

of a woman. This witness has not supported the prosecution fully.

.....20/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

31. Be that as it may, evidences of Sheikh Sattar (PW9)

and Husainkhan Pathan (PW11) corroborate attempts of Uddhav

(PW2) in respect of the search of his sister.

32. The prosecution heavily relied on DNA Reports and

Chemical Analyzer's Report.

33. One of submissions of learned counsel for appellant

Pappu was that the victim was not examined by the prosecution,

but she was examined by defence i.e. by accused No.2 Gulab.

34. In preceding paragraphs of this judgment, we have

already recorded our findings that the prosecution was fully

justified in not examining the victim.

So far as she being examined as defence witness, the

said aspect is also thoughtfully considered by learned Judge of

Trial Court in paragraph No.57 of his judgment. Learned Judge

observed that after completion of all arguments in trial, an

application was moved by accused No.2 Gulab to record demeanor

and conduct of the victim and accordingly the victim was called in

the Court. The Court observed that some questions were put to

.....21/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

her. However, the Court found that her answers were not rational.

The Court found that at the time of answering questions about her

age, she started counting fingers, but she was unable to answer

about age. Learned Judge, therefore, in our view, rightly

discarded evidence of the victim because she was unable to give

any rational answers. We also independently noticed that the

evidence of the victim need not be considered at all in view of the

evidence of Dr.Kiran Deshpande (PW3), a Psychiatric.

35. The prosecution examined Dr.Kewal Korde (PW4).

His evidence shows that Pappu, accused No.1, and Gulab, accused

No.2, were brought at Primary Health Centre at Jivati for their

medical examinations and accordingly they were examined.

Requisition-cum-medical report of Pappu is at Exhibit-93.

Whereas, requisition-cum-medical report of Gulab is at Exhibit-94.

Thereafter, he referred both of them for further examination to

Rural Hospital at Gadchandur.

36. The prosecution examined Dr.Vijay Kalaskar (PW5).

On 3.3.2015, Gulab, accused No.2, was brought to him for his

.....22/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

medical examination. Exhibit-102, is Forensic Medical

Examination of Gulab. Perusal of the said shows that blood of

Gulab was extracted by the doctor.

It is submission of learned counsel for appellant Gulab,

accused No.2, that from Exhibit-103 it is clear that 5 ml plain blood

was preserved and it was sealed. However, he submitted that on

the basis of Exhibit-110 dated 4.3.2015, the communication from

the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vijaykumar Chavhan (PW23)

to the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital at Gadchandur for taking

blood sample of Gulab for DNA, there is no evidence to show that

on 4.3.2015 or subsequent thereto Gulab was produced before any

doctor and his blood was taken in DNA Kit.

37. Clothes of Pappu, accused No.1, Gulab, accused No.2,

and the victim were sent to Chemical Analyzer under C.A.

Requisition (Exhibit-193). Chemical Analyzer's Report (Exhibit-

83) does not show blood or semen on their clothes. However,

semen was found on saree and petticoat of the victim.

38. The semen stains cuttings from saree, the semen stains

.....23/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

cutting from petticoat, and vaginal swab were referred for DNA in

Ml Case No.DNAn-197/2015 along with that blood of Pappu,

accused No.1, was also sent. DNA Report is at Exhibit-80. The

said DNA Report shows that the DNA was extracted from blood

sample of the victim and Gulab, accused No.2 and semen was

detected on saree and on petticoat. As per the Report, DNA

Profiling Evidence for Establishing Identity is as under:

"Opinion : 1) Mixed DNA profiles obtained
from semen stains 1 and 2 on exhibit 2, saree
(Bn/830/15) and semen stains 1,2, 3 and 4 on
exhibit 3, petticoat (Bn/830/15) contain DNA
profiles of the victim (DNAn/132/15) and
Gulab Jadhav (DNAn/132/15).

2) DNA profile obtained from exhibit 4, nail
clippings (Bn/831/15) is of female origin and
matched with DNA profile of the victim
(DNAn/132/15).

3) DNA profile obtained from exhibit 1, nail
clippings (Bn/832/15) is of male origin and
matched with DNA profile of Pappu Karse (Bn/
832/15)."

From the aforesaid, it is clear that DNA profile

obtained from exhibit-4, nail clippings are of female origin and

matched with DNA profile of the victim. Similarly, DNA profile

.....24/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

obtained from exhibit-1, nail clipping are of male origin and

matched with DNA profile of Pappu, accused No.1.

However, insofar as Gulab, accused No.2, is concerned, it does not

state that DNA obtained from the semen matches with DNA of

Gulab. Thus, the DNA Report exonerates Gulab though firmly

implicates Pappu.

39. In view of the consistent evidence of Uddhav (PW2)

that he caught red handed Pappu, accused No.1, while committing

rape on his mentally challenged sister, which is conclusively

proved by the DNA Report, we have no difficulty to uphold the

judgment and order of conviction in respect of Pappu, accused

No.1, and we confirm the judgment and order of sentence

punishing Pappu.

40. However, there is no evidence at all that Gulab,

accused No.2, had any role in taking away the victim from lawful

custody of her father and grandfather and he has any role to bring

her inside the house of Pappu, accused No.1. In absence of any

.....25/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::
Judgment

apeals374 & 492.18 1

evidence in that behalf, we are of view that conviction of Gulab for

offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Insofar as

conviction for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(j)(l) of the

Indian Penal Code is concerned, we have already discussed that his

name was not there in First Information Report (Exhibit-69) and

even his presence in the house of Pappu, accused No.1, as stated

during course of the evidence by Uddhav (PW2), is an

improvement. I addition to that, the scientific evidence, DNA

Report (Exhibit-80), also exonerates him. In this view of the

matter, we are of view that his appeal is required to be allowed.

41. Conspectus of the entire discussion leads us to pass

following order:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal No.492/2018 filed by accused No.1-Pappu s/o Ratanlal Karase is dismissed.

(ii) Criminal Appeal No.374/2018 filed by accused No.2-Gulab s/o Sadu Jadhao is allowed.

.....26/-

::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 ::: Judgment apeals374 & 492.18 1 26

(iii) The judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Chandrapur dated 08.05.2018 in Special (Atro.) Case No.13/2015 is set aside to the extent it convicts appellant-Gulab s/o Sadu Jadhao for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(j)(i) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The appellant-Gulab s/o Sadu Jadhao stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(j)(i) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(v) The appellant-Gulab s/o Sadu Jadhao, who is in jail, shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

            JUDGE                                     JUDGE

!! BRW !!




                                                                       ...../-



  ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 23:23:02 :::

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court

Pappu S/O. Ratanlal Karase (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashta Thr. Police ... on 27 September, 2021

Bench: V.M.Deshpande, Amit B.Borkar